Literature DB >> 26504496

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): a Misleading Measure of Prediction Improvement Even with Independent Test Data Sets.

Margaret S Pepe1, Jing Fan1, Ziding Feng2, Thomas Gerds3, Jorgen Hilden3.   

Abstract

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI) is a very popular measure for evaluating the improvement in prediction performance gained by adding a marker to a set of baseline predictors. However, the statistical properties of this novel measure have not been explored in depth. We demonstrate the alarming result that the NRI statistic calculated on a large test dataset using risk models derived from a training set is likely to be positive even when the new marker has no predictive information. A related theoretical example is provided in which an incorrect risk function that includes an uninformative marker is proven to erroneously yield a positive NRI. Some insight into this phenomenon is provided. Since large values for the NRI statistic may simply be due to use of poorly fitting risk models, we suggest caution in using the NRI as the basis for marker evaluation. Other measures of prediction performance improvement, such as measures derived from the ROC curve, the net benefit function and the Brier score, cannot be large due to poorly fitting risk functions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biomarkers; classification; diagnostic test; receiver operating characteristic; risk prediction

Year:  2014        PMID: 26504496      PMCID: PMC4615606          DOI: 10.1007/s12561-014-9118-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Biosci        ISSN: 1867-1764


  19 in total

1.  Novel metrics for evaluating improvement in discrimination: net reclassification and integrated discrimination improvement for normal variables and nested models.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Olga V Demler
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Evaluating a new marker for risk prediction using the test tradeoff: an update.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Ben Van Calster; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 0.968

Review 3.  Traditional statistical methods for evaluating prediction models are uninformative as to clinical value: towards a decision analytic framework.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.929

Review 4.  Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score.

Authors:  Ioanna Tzoulaki; George Liberopoulos; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Multicategory reclassification statistics for assessing improvements in diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Jialiang Li; Binyan Jiang; Jason P Fine
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-05       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Testing for improvement in prediction model performance.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe; Kathleen F Kerr; Gary Longton; Zheyu Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-01-07       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 9.  Net reclassification indices for evaluating risk prediction instruments: a critical review.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Zheyu Wang; Holly Janes; Robyn L McClelland; Bruce M Psaty; Margaret S Pepe
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  One statistical test is sufficient for assessing new predictive markers.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Angel M Cronin; Colin B Begg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  55 in total

Review 1.  Polygenic Scores to Assess Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Clinical Perspectives and Basic Implications.

Authors:  Krishna G Aragam; Pradeep Natarajan
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 17.367

2.  Response.

Authors:  Margaret Sullivan Pepe
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Assessing the Clinical Impact of Risk Prediction Models With Decision Curves: Guidance for Correct Interpretation and Appropriate Use.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Marshall D Brown; Kehao Zhu; Holly Janes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  First things first: risk model performance metrics should reflect the clinical application.

Authors:  Kathleen F Kerr; Holly Janes
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-12-10       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Performance of the Net Reclassification Improvement for Nonnested Models and a Novel Percentile-Based Alternative.

Authors:  Shannon B McKearnan; Julian Wolfson; David M Vock; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Patrick J O'Connor
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 6.  The Evolving Cardiovascular Disease Risk Scores for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Yanglu Zhao; Nathan D Wong
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 7.  Developing prediction models for clinical use using logistic regression: an overview.

Authors:  Maren E Shipe; Stephen A Deppen; Farhood Farjah; Eric L Grogan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Health risk prediction models incorporating personality data: Motivation, challenges, and illustration.

Authors:  Benjamin P Chapman; Feng Lin; Shumita Roy; Ralph H B Benedict; Jeffrey M Lyness
Journal:  Personal Disord       Date:  2019-01

9.  Improved Detection of Abnormal Glucose Tolerance in Africans: The Value of Combining Hemoglobin A1c With Glycated Albumin.

Authors:  Arsene F Hobabagabo; Nana H Osei-Tutu; Thomas Hormenu; Elyssa M Shoup; Christopher W DuBose; Lilian S Mabundo; Joon Ha; Arthur Sherman; Stephanie T Chung; David B Sacks; Anne E Sumner
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2020-08-14       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 10.  Lipidomics and Biomarker Discovery in Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Farsad Afshinnia; Thekkelnaycke M Rajendiran; Stefanie Wernisch; Tanu Soni; Adil Jadoon; Alla Karnovsky; George Michailidis; Subramaniam Pennathur
Journal:  Semin Nephrol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 5.299

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.